Snark aside, I really do think some of these bills could pass, especially the bipartisan legislation that should have become law years ago.

For example, the Eliminate Privacy Notice Confusion Act once again passed committee. It would eliminate the need to mail an annual privacy notice to members unless the policy changes. You might remember this bill from when it passed the House in 2013 and 2012. Maybe the third time's a charm.

The Capital Access for Small Community Financial Institutions Act would allow privately-insured credit unions to join a Federal Home Loan Bank. If the FHLB is fine with it, why not? Pass this one already.

Some interesting new CFPB bills also cleared HFS. One would codify the Credit Union Advisory Council and another would require the CFPB to open those meetings to the public. I support both enthusiastically, because the CFPB has ridiculously secretive about these groups.

Rep. Sean Duffy (R-Wis.), who introduced the bill, explained during its markup that the CFPB has been claiming it's exempt from federal agency transparency laws because of its affiliation with the Federal Reserve.

I'm not crazy about the idea of exempting Open Market Committee meetings from public scrutiny, but at least the subject matter is arguably sensitive. If the CFPB's Credit Union Advisory Council meetings include discussions that compromise national security, that's all the more reason CU Times should be there.

Credit unions also won a small victory with the committee's passage of the Mortgage Servicing Asset Capital Requirements Act, which would require the NCUA to conduct a study of mortgage capital requirements. Boiled down to what that means for credit unions, this bill would conceivably slow the progress of the NCUA's risk-based capital proposal.

It sounds good, but the NCUA said it's been pressured to provide Basel-ish parity with other agencies. If true, there's no way the president would sign that bill, even if it made it through the Senate. I'm not holding my breath here.

Same goes for GSE reform, which seemed dead in the water this year until the FHFA Inspector General released a report that said Fannie and Freddie are on a fast track to another bailout that could cost taxpayers as much as $180 billion. This facepalm-worthy revelation countered well worn talking points that claimed the GSEs were profitable and on their way out of conservatorship.

What gives? According to the OIG, Fannie and Freddie's conservatorship agreement required them to reduce the size of their investment portfolios. It also prevents them from building adequate capital. And if that wasn't bad enough, the majority of Fannie and Freddie's core earnings aren't being generated from their mortgage businesses, but rather, lawsuit settlements against bad apples in the mortgage meltdown.

The situation is so dire, the OIG said, it requires congressional action.

That's pretty desperate, folks.

Finally, closer to home, the NCUA is starting to post comment letters on the second risk-based lending proposal. Some of these are pretty good reads.

A tip of the hat goes to CU*Answers CEO Randy Karnes, who does such a good job of leveraging his CUSO membership beyond basic products and economy of scale savings. Comment letters aren't due until April 27, but so far CU*Answers dominates the pack.

Heather Anderson is executive editor of CU Times.  She can be reached at [email protected].